On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a. I am thinking that we should instead keep the ``model`` argument, > but make it optional. Then, we ensure that one of ``model`` or > ``form_class`` is given. ``form_class``, if given, would override > ``model`` or if just ``model`` was given, then a ModelForm would be > created for the passed model. Does this sound reasonable?
Yes, very much so. I'd like to call it ``model`` and ``form`` (instead of ``form_class``, which is redundant), but Brian's building the shed, so he can paint it any color he likes. [The cute thing about allowing any form, by the way, is that if you give it something that *looks* like a ModelForm -- i.e. defines save() -- you can actually use the view with any form you like... Me likey.] > 2. What should we do with the ``follow`` argument? [...] > b. We could issue a deprecation warning if ``follow`` is used, > letting people know that generic views now use newforms and to use > ``form_class`` if you need a custom form. This would be a bit more > backwards compatible, since if you aren't using ``follow`` everything > should work the same. If you are using ``follow``, then those forms > might display/behave differently (i.e. fields you were trying to hide > now get displayed). +1 here. I'd say issue DeprecationWarning until 1.0 beta, then drop it entirely. I'll have a look at the patch itself, but from your description it sounds like this is looking good. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
